KisStartup

Blockchain in the tea industry is not a “more sophisticated QR code.” Rather, it is a way to reorganize the truth of the supply chain: who records which data, at what point, who has the authority to validate it, and which version of the story the final buyer is allowed to see. When implemented correctly, blockchain transforms “trust”—a costly asset in specialty and organic tea—into infrastructure: verifiable, shareable, and scalable. When implemented poorly, it becomes merely a technological layer added onto unstandardized processes, increasing costs while leaving data unreliable.

Why Tea Is Particularly Well-Suited for Blockchain Compared to Other Crops

Tea has three characteristics that make transparent traceability a core competitive advantage.

First, tea is highly susceptible to blending and mislabeling. Products may share the same regional name or processing style, yet differ fundamentally in bud origin, plucking standards, firing batches, and storage conditions—differences that can completely erase the flavor profile of specialty tea. As a result, international buyers increasingly ask not only “where was it grown?” but also “how was it processed?” and “who verified it?”

Second, the tea supply chain contains multiple “breakpoints”: farmers, collection points, pre-processing workshops, factories, traders, warehouses, agents, and online channels. Each breakpoint represents a risk of data loss, food safety issues, and disputes in the event of complaints.

Third, brand value often exceeds raw material value. Tea is sold not only as dry matter, but as reputation—of origin, craftsmanship, narrative, and consistency. When embedded in the right “arteries” of the supply chain, blockchain helps tea move closer to how the wine industry manages provenance.

This is clearly reflected in studies of organic tea supply chains in India, where blockchain-based models significantly improve sustainability indicators, especially transparency and credibility—two decisive factors for premium pricing and long-term market access.

Transparency Is a Result of Data Design and Validation, Not Blockchain Alone

Many blockchain projects fail because they assume blockchain automatically creates trust. In reality, blockchain merely “freezes” data; whether that data is accurate depends entirely on event design and attestation mechanisms.

In tea, the three most valuable—and most frequently falsified—events are:

• Origin and cultivation practices: plot IDs, input logs, pre-harvest intervals, and microclimate conditions (where applicable).
• Processing events: firing/enzymatic deactivation/oxidation/drying batches, temperature–time parameters, final moisture levels, and test results (residues, microbiology).
• Ownership transfer and storage conditions: handover points, locations, warehouse temperature and humidity, containers for export, and tamper-evident custody chains.

For these events to be credible, data cannot rely solely on self-reporting by farmers. A multi-layer validation structure is required: farmer declaration → cooperative or workshop confirmation → third-party validation (testing bodies or certification agencies) signing off at critical checkpoints. International guidelines consistently emphasize that blockchain is most effective when combined with strong data governance, clear role-based permissions, and off-chain verification such as audits and laboratory testing.

Why India Has Advanced Further: Embedding Blockchain into Market Infrastructure

The most instructive lesson from Assam is not the QR code, but the ambition to integrate blockchain into price formation and trading mechanisms. Proposals for AI-driven, blockchain-based tea auctions aim to make bidding histories, transaction records, and price formation tamper-proof, thereby increasing market confidence and reducing information asymmetry. This represents blockchain influencing industry structure, not merely marketing.

For Vietnam, stopping at traceability labels risks confining tea to the role of raw material or domestic OCOP products. To enter the specialty tea map, traceability must evolve into market infrastructure: enabling faster B2B decisions, batch-level quality control, and the creation of “data reputation” for tea regions.

Cost-Efficient Architecture for Tea Enterprises: Minimal On-Chain, Maximum Impact

A practical architecture typically involves:

• Storing detailed data (images, reports, certificates of analysis, extended logs) off-chain.
• Recording only hashes of evidence, key events, and digital signatures of validators on-chain.

This approach reduces costs, improves performance, and avoids excessive on-chain storage. To ensure structured event data, many supply chains adopt event-based standards such as GS1 EPCIS/CBV, which clearly define who did what, to which batch, where, when, and why—facilitating international data sharing and scalability.

Three Major Constraints in Vietnam—and How to Overcome Them

Unstable harvesting and processing standards: Even perfect traceability cannot compensate for inconsistent quality. Blockchain cannot replace production discipline. Traceability should be treated as a digital quality assurance system, starting with one or two well-controlled tea lines.

Data clutter: Excessive data entry without decision-making value leads to system abandonment. The solution is internal dashboards supporting three key decisions: raw leaf purchasing by quality, batch-level processing adjustments, and inventory and storage control.

Rising platform and labeling costs: Building systems from scratch is rarely efficient. Many enterprises benefit more from existing platforms and focus investment on quality measurement, testing, SOP training, and QR user experience.

A 6–12 Month Roadmap for “Doing It Right”

Months 1–2: Select a flagship tea line and a manageable raw material zone; standardize 10–15 critical data fields tied to quality and risk.

Months 3–4: Implement validation mechanisms: who signs processing batches, COAs, packaging, and warehouse release.

Months 5–6: Use data for commercial differentiation, providing B2B buyers with batch-level traceability files or “tea batch passports.”

Months 7–12: Expand modularly with IoT for storage conditions, anti-counterfeiting measures, and potentially a transparent B2B marketplace where buyers can review batch history before purchasing.

KisStartup Perspective

Blockchain is a lever for tea to move beyond the role of raw material—but only when paired with quality discipline and data discipline. For specialty markets, the real question is not whether blockchain is used, but which data can serve as credible evidence of quality, and whether that evidence speaks a shared language with the market.

When achieved, blockchain does more than enable traceability; it positions tea as a verifiable quality system rather than a narrative. In a market where trust is increasingly expensive, that becomes a long-term competitive advantage.

© Copyright belongs to KisStartup. Any form of copying, quoting, or reuse must clearly cite KisStartup as the source.

References
[1] “Blockchain-driven organic tea supply chain …,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021.
[2] UNDP, “Blockchain for Agri-Food Traceability,” publication page. (Alcimed)
[3] GS1, “EPCIS 2.0 / event-based traceability standard (PDF/standard documentation).” (DCVMN)
[4] Business Standard, “Assam tea body welcomes proposal for AI-driven blockchain auction system,” news report.
[5] Deccan Herald, “Assam … AI-driven blockchain-based auctioning system,” news report.
[6] TMA Solutions, “Blockchain and Traceability Solutions … meet export standards for EU/US/Japan,” 2026. (tmasolutions.com)

For decades, pineapples have been viewed primarily through the lens of agriculture and food processing. Economic value has focused on fresh fruit, juice, canned products, and dried goods, while the rest of the plant—leaves, peels, cores, and stems—has been treated as waste, often burned or buried. However, as the circular economy and bioeconomy emerge as new pillars of development, this perception is rapidly changing.

An increasing body of research and real-world models demonstrates that pineapple is not merely a fruit, but a biomass platform capable of supporting multiple parallel value chains, including food, materials, biotechnology, energy, and environmental services. When organized through an ecosystem-oriented approach, every part of the pineapple plant can become an input for a different business model, significantly increasing value per hectare of cultivation.

New Business Models Built Around Pineapple Biomass

Globally, a notable trend is the rise of enterprises that no longer operate in isolation at a single stage of the value chain, but instead design business models around biomass flows. In Costa Rica, eco:fibr collects entire pineapple plants after harvest—previously burned as waste—to produce eco-friendly pulp that partially replaces wood-based raw materials in the paper industry. The value of eco:fibr lies not only in pulp production, but in linking agriculture with forestry and sustainable packaging, contributing to forest protection and emissions reduction.

In Kenya, the Mananasi Fibre project demonstrates a different approach: transforming pineapple waste into multiple parallel revenue streams. Pineapple leaves are processed into fibers for the textile industry, residual biomass is converted into biochar and organic fertilizer, and waste collection activities generate carbon credits by avoiding open-field burning. This model exemplifies a “multi-product from a single biomass” approach, where profitability comes from the total system value rather than a single product.

Across Asia and Latin America, startups such as NextEvo and CeluNova focus on converting pineapple leaves into fibers, cellulose, or bio-based materials for fashion, packaging, and technical applications. These models do not compete with traditional agriculture, but instead unlock overlooked value streams to serve industries under pressure to replace fossil-based materials.

At the same time, large food corporations such as Great Giant Pineapple (Indonesia) pursue vertically integrated “zero-waste” strategies, reusing pineapple residues for animal feed, fertilizers, biogas, and packaging materials. These cases show that circular economy principles are not limited to startups, but are increasingly part of long-term competitive strategies for large enterprises.

Applied Bioeconomy and Modular Biorefinery Approaches

A key intersection across these models is the rise of small-scale biorefineries. Rather than investing in large plants from the outset, many successful initiatives begin with modular technologies that can operate independently and later be integrated. A bromelain extraction module from pineapple peels, cores, or stems can run at small scale; residual biomass can be used for feed or compost; wastewater can be treated via anaerobic digestion to produce biogas for on-site energy use.

This modular approach reduces upfront investment risks, enhances adaptability to market conditions, and is particularly suitable for tropical agriculture, where biomass supply is geographically dispersed and seasonally variable. When multiple modules are combined, the value generated per ton of pineapple biomass can far exceed that of traditional linear processing models.

Building Startup Ecosystems Around Pineapple

International experience shows that successful pineapple-based business models are rarely the result of isolated efforts. Instead, they are embedded in innovation ecosystems involving farmers, enterprises, universities, government agencies, and intermediary organizations. Farmers and cooperatives are not merely raw material suppliers, but partners in collection, pre-processing, and supply of valuable by-products. Enterprises integrate technology and market access; universities and research institutes provide R&D, process standardization, and workforce training; governments establish policy frameworks, standards, and infrastructure; and intermediaries connect capital, markets, and knowledge.

The critical factor lies in transforming waste into data-enabled resources. When pineapple leaves, peels, and cores are measured, classified, and traceable, they become reliable inputs for bio-based and material business models. Conversely, without lifecycle data, shared technical standards, and platforms connecting supply and demand, these by-products remain classified as waste despite their substantial economic potential.

From Pineapple Crops to Innovation Ecosystems

If pineapples are viewed solely as fruit, business opportunities remain limited to agriculture and food processing. However, if pineapples are recognized as a regenerative biological ecosystem, they become a space where agriculture meets biotechnology, materials intersect with fashion, and economic growth aligns with soil regeneration and emissions reduction. As global markets seek alternatives to fossil-based materials and low-emission value chains, pineapples—common in tropical regions—can serve as a foundation for new, flexible, and sustainable business models.

Ultimately, the determining factor is not technological capability alone, but ecosystem connectivity: connecting biomass with data, technology with markets, and economic value with environmental benefits. In this context, entrepreneurship based on pineapple biomass is not just about a product—it is about the emergence of a bioeconomy in action.

© Copyright belongs to KisStartup. Any form of copying, quoting, or reuse must clearly cite KisStartup as the source.

References (IEEE)
[1] S. R. Rojas et al., “Current status, challenges and valorization strategies for pineapple processing waste management,” International Journal of Sustainable Resources and Bioeconomy, 2025.
 [2] FAO, Bioeconomy and Circular Economy in Agri-Food Systems, Rome, 2022.
 [3] eco:fibr, “Pineapple plants as a sustainable raw material for pulp,” Root Camp Interview, 2023.
 [4] SMEP Programme, Mananasi Fibre Pilot Case Study, July 2024.
 [5] NextEvo, “Transforming pineapple waste into sustainable fashion,” 2024.
 [6] CeluNova, Hult Prize Foundation Case Materials, 2023.
 [7] Great Giant Foods, Sustainability Report 2023–2024, Indonesia, 2024.
 [8] S. Mussatto et al., “Biorefinery concepts for agro-industrial residues,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 215, pp. 2–10, 2016.
 [9] OECD, Innovation for a Sustainable Bioeconomy, Paris, 2020.
 [10] Global Resilience Partnership, Keys to Building an Innovation Ecosystem in Food and Agriculture, 2021.
 [11] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change, 2019.

Product–Market Fit is not a moment, but a continuous process of discovery and adjustment. It requires founders to repeatedly test assumptions, observe real behavior, and confront uncomfortable truths.

Customers and the Real Problem

• Are customers actively searching for a solution, or are they only using mine because I introduced it?
• Without explanation, do customers immediately understand the product’s value?
• Is the problem I am solving truly painful, or merely a “nice-to-have” improvement?
• If my product disappeared tomorrow, would customers feel genuine frustration—or simply indifference?

Activation – the Moment of Realized Value

• How long does it take for users to experience the core value of the product?
• How many users sign up but never reach the most important feature?
• Am I measuring real usage behavior, or just accounts and downloads?
• If direct onboarding were removed, how many users could still succeed on their own?

Retention – Returning Over Time

• After one month, how many customers are still active?
• When do customers leave, and for what reasons?
• Do customers return because of habit, genuine value, or lack of alternatives?
• Am I looking at total users instead of tracking cohorts over time?

KisStartup insight:
If you cannot clearly map monthly retention curves, you likely do not yet fully understand your customers.

Willingness To Pay (WTP)

• Are customers paying for the solution itself, or due to relationships, pilots, or incentives?
• If prices increase slightly, how many customers remain?
• How many customers purchase a second or third time?
• When external support disappears, will they continue paying?

Growth and Scaling Decisions

• Am I scaling because the data supports it—or due to fundraising or reporting pressure?
• If marketing stopped today, would the product survive?
• Does growth come from returning customers, or only from new ones?
• Am I using capital to mask the absence of PMF?

The Final Question for Founders

• Do customers recommend the product without being asked?
• If forced to choose, would I prefer:

1. fewer customers who are deeply satisfied, or
2. many customers who use the product once and leave?

• Am I listening to data—or only to compliments?

A question KisStartup often asks during mentoring:
“If tomorrow you could no longer call this a ‘startup,’ would you still want to build it?”

PMF is not a trophy to display.
It is a fragile state that must be measured, examined, and continuously validated.
Great founders are not those who claim they have PMF—but those who relentlessly question whether they are deceiving themselves.

© Copyright KisStartup. Any reproduction or citation must clearly acknowledge KisStartup.

 

What is WTP?
Willingness To Pay is not simply about asking:
“Will customers pay?”
but rather:
“Are customers willing to pay the right price, without subsidies or external support, and continue paying repeatedly over time?”

A common and risky misconception
Many startups assume:
“Customers have paid → therefore the product has value.”

However, KisStartup’s practical observations show that customers may pay:

• for a pilot project,
• due to grant or donor funding, or
• because there are no alternatives at the time.

Yet they may not:

• purchase a second time,
• expand usage, or
• recommend the product to others.

In such cases, WTP exists momentarily, but Product–Market Fit (PMF) does not.

WTP alone is not enough – repurchase and continued usage matter
A product with genuine PMF typically shows that:

• customers return for second and third purchases,
• perceived value increases over time rather than declines,
• customers proactively request additional features, service tiers, or expansions.

Conversely, when:

• only a small number of customers pay,
• the observation period is too short, and
• data is not analyzed by cohorts and cycles,

startups are highly prone to false positives about PMF.

KisStartup’s perspective: PMF is a process, not a milestone
Across our incubation and acceleration programs, we emphasize that PMF is not something you “achieve” in a single month.
PMF is an ongoing process of validating assumptions through real behavior and real data.

We therefore advise startups to:

• observe at least 3–6 months before declaring PMF,
• track activation, retention, and WTP simultaneously, and
• avoid premature scaling when evidence is still weak.

Do not celebrate too early
The first paying customer matters.
But PMF only emerges when customers stay, return, and pay repeatedly.

If you are building a startup, ask yourself:

• Do customers come back?
• How long do they continue using the product?
• Do they buy more or upgrade?
• Will they still pay when support or incentives are removed?

Only when these questions are answered with data rather than intuition are you truly approaching PMF.

© Copyright KisStartup. Any reproduction or citation must clearly acknowledge KisStartup.

 

On January 23, 2026, KisStartup officially announced the KisStartup Incubation Program 2026—built on a distinctive incubation model where technology and cultural heritage converge at their most critical point: the market.

In 2026, KisStartup is not merely seeking promising ideas. We partner with teams that are prepared to translate intrinsic value into viable business models—models capable of generating revenue, delivering measurable social impact, and sustaining long-term growth.

Techbloom – Leap to Market

Technology Startup Incubation: From Product to Market

Techbloom is an incubation and investment program designed for technology startups that already possess a solid product foundation (MVP or prototype) and are ready to transition into real-world markets.

The program focuses on:

• Rigorous market validation in real operating conditions
• Refinement of business models and go-to-market strategies
• Strategic connections with customers, partners, and investors
• Strengthening operational readiness and fundraising capabilities

Techbloom is tailored for both domestic and international technology startups seeking to scale in Vietnam and the broader region—particularly within market environments that demand speed, pragmatism, and strong execution discipline.

Register at: >>LINK

H2M – Heritage to Market

Incubation Grounded in Culture and Heritage

H2M is an incubation program for startups that leverage cultural and local heritage assets, integrating modern business thinking and technology to develop sustainable, community-responsible business models.

H2M focuses on:

• Transforming cultural values into market-ready products and services
• Designing ethical business models that ensure fairness for heritage-owning communities
• Developing creative, cultural, and sustainable tourism initiatives
• Expanding social impact in parallel with economic performance

H2M is designed for projects that believe preservation and commercialization are not opposing forces, but can reinforce one another when approached with care, responsibility, and sound design.

Register at: >>LINK

The Parallel Incubation Model – What Distinguishes KisStartup

TECHBLOOM and H2M operate as two independent tracks, unified by a shared philosophy:

• Incubation is not for showcasing—it is for market entry
• Growth is not linear, but driven by phase shifts and strategic breakthroughs

Both tracks feature:

• Rolling admissions and continuous project intake
• Hands-on training, coaching, and execution-focused mentorship
• Direct access to startup ecosystems, strategic partners, and investors
• A clearly defined pathway from idea or product → market → investment
• Embedded human resources to accelerate validation and market deployment

Who Should Join KisStartup Incubation 2026?

• Technology startups with an MVP, ready for market testing
• Culture- and heritage-based startups seeking sustainable commercialization
• Early-stage enterprises with existing markets requiring restructuring for growth
• Domestic and international teams aiming to establish or expand their presence in Vietnam

Registration & Contact Information

• Applications are accepted on a rolling basis
• Only shortlisted projects will be contacted

Website: https://www.kisstartup.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kisstartup
Email: hello@kisstartup.com

KisStartup Incubation 2026
Where technology breaks through, heritage is reawakened, and the market begins.

KisStartup – compiled and presented

After understanding what IP-backed financing is, a common question many startups ask is:
“It sounds promising, but has anyone actually done it? And how?”

The answer is yes – and more often than many realize. The following cases show that intellectual property (IP) is not just legal paperwork. In many situations, it has become a real financial tool that helps companies survive, scale, or restructure. More importantly, each case offers concrete lessons for startups.

Magic Leap: Using patents as collateral

Magic Leap, an augmented reality (AR) startup that raised billions of dollars, used nearly 2,000 patents as collateral in a financing deal with JPMorgan Chase in 2019.
This did not mean selling the patents. Magic Leap continued to use the technology to develop products. However, the size and clarity of its IP portfolio gave the bank confidence that, in a worst-case scenario, these assets could be licensed or transferred to recover value.

Lesson for startups:
You do not need 2,000 patents. What matters is managing IP as a structured portfolio, not as isolated documents. A well-organized IP portfolio is far more financeable.

Kodak: IP as a financial lifeline

When the film camera market collapsed, Kodak faced severe financial distress and near-bankruptcy. What saved the company was not factories or equipment, but a portfolio of over 1,000 digital imaging patents.
By selling and licensing these patents, Kodak raised approximately USD 525 million, enabling financial restructuring and survival.

Lesson for startups:
IP is not only for growth; it is also a risk buffer. In times of crisis, IP may become the last strategic asset that enables recovery.

Masai: An IP-backed loan saves an SME

Masai, a Singapore-based footwear company, owned patented designs that improved posture and health. When counterfeit products flooded the market, revenues dropped sharply, pushing the company toward bankruptcy.
In 2016, Masai became one of the first companies to access an IP-backed loan under Singapore’s national IP financing scheme. Using its core patent as collateral, the company secured a seven-figure loan, enabling restructuring and renewed growth.

Lesson for startups:
IP-backed financing is not only for big tech. SMEs and early-stage startups with genuinely protected and differentiated IP can access it—if the ecosystem allows.

NatWest: Banks designing IP-based products for startups

In the UK, NatWest Group offers lending products for high-growth businesses where IP is considered part of the collateral base. The bank works with independent IP valuation firms to assess patents, software, and trademarks.
Companies may lack physical assets but must prove that their IP is closely linked to the business model and future cash flows.

Lesson for startups:
When banks understand IP, startups are no longer forced to rely on real estate. In return, startups must demonstrate strong IP governance and transparency.

South Korea & China: When governments unlock IP-backed finance

South Korea has built a national IP valuation system, allowing companies to borrow up to 60–70% of assessed IP value—even with limited credit history. Tens of thousands of technology SMEs have gained access to capital as a result.
In China, patent- and trademark-backed lending has grown rapidly, reaching hundreds of billions of USD. This growth is driven by clear policies, bank incentives, and a national strategy that treats IP as a strategic asset.

Lesson for startups:
IP-backed financing is not only about individual firms. It requires an ecosystem: policy, valuation, insurance, and enforcement. Startups that standardize and manage IP early benefit most when such ecosystems mature.

What should startups take away?

Across all cases, one message is clear: no one secures financing simply by “having IP.”
Successful companies share common traits:

• IP tightly connected to real business activities,
• clear ownership, and
• a compelling commercialization story that convinces lenders of future value.

For startups, these examples are not a promise of immediate IP-backed loans. They are a reminder that IP can become a powerful financing lever—if prepared early and managed correctly.

© Copyright KisStartup. Any reproduction or reuse must clearly cite KisStartup as the source.

References:

Avon River Ventures
Case Studies: Successful IP-Backed Financing Deals
A compilation of notable IP-backed financing transactions, including SMEs and technology startups.
https://avonriverventures.com/case-studies-successful-ip-backed-financin

Reality.News / Public Filings
Magic Leap Patents Signed Over to JPMorgan Chase as Collateral (2019)
Information on Magic Leap using its patent portfolio as collateral in a financing agreement with JPMorgan Chase.
https://www.reality.news/news/magic-leap-patents-signed-over-jpmorgan-ch

BlueIron IP
IP-Backed Lending in Asia
An analysis of IP-backed lending models in Asia, including South Korea, China, and Singapore.
https://blueironip.com/ip-backed-lending-in-asia/

Singapore IP Financing Scheme – Case Masai
Masai as one of the earliest cases to access IP-backed loans under Singapore’s national IP financing program.
Compiled from:
https://avonriverventures.com/case-studies-successful-ip-backed-financin

NatWest Group (UK)
Intellectual Property Finance & High-Growth Lending
Information on lending products for high-growth companies, where intellectual property is recognized as part of the collateral.
https://www.cliftonpf.co.uk/blog/10072024142230-intellectual-property-fi

CNIPA & China IP Today
Statistics on the rapid growth of patent- and trademark-backed loans in China.
https://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2243

https://english.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2024/1/24/art_3090_190001.html

WIPO – Country Perspectives on IP Finance
A series of country-level reports (China, Malaysia, etc.) on policies and models for intellectual property finance.
https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/series/index.jsp?id=241

 

Many startups do not fail because of a lack of effort or technical capability.
They fail because they ask the critical questions too late.

The product is already built.
Features are completed.
The website is live.
The pitch deck is ready.

Only then do founders start asking customers:
“What do you think about this product?”

That is the moment a startup enters its riskiest path.

Why is “build first, ask later” so dangerous?

In many founders’ minds, the logic seems reasonable: customers can only give feedback once there is a concrete product. But in entrepreneurship, the learning sequence is completely reversed.

Startups do not lack products.
Startups lack evidence.

When founders ask only after building, the feedback they usually receive sounds like:

• “Looks interesting.”
• “Good idea.”
• “Let me think about it.”

These responses are not wrong—but they are useless for decision-making. They do not answer the survival questions:

• Who is willing to pay?
• Is the problem painful enough?
• If this product did not exist, would customers actively look for alternatives?

The psychological trap: the more you build, the harder it is to stop

Once founders invest time, money, and emotional energy into a product, it becomes extremely difficult to return to the original questions. This phenomenon is well studied in organizational behavior as escalation of commitment: the more people invest, the more they defend their initial decision—even when data suggests it is wrong.

At that point, customer feedback is no longer a learning tool. It becomes a confirmation tool. Founders selectively hear what supports their beliefs and ignore opposing signals.

The mistake is not “building” – it is building too early

Lean startup thinking does not oppose building products.
The problem is the sequence.

Many startups build:

• before clearly defining a customer segment,
• before understanding the buying decision process,
• before knowing which pain point is “painful enough.”

As a result, the MVP stops being a Minimum Viable Product and becomes a “mini full product”—smaller in scale, but still fundamentally wrong.

Customer discovery is not asking for opinions

Another common misunderstanding is treating customer discovery as casual surveys. In reality, discovery is about testing hypotheses, not asking for advice.

The right questions focus on:

• What are customers doing now to solve the problem?
• How frequent and costly is that problem?
• What frustrates or exhausts them most in the current process?

If founders cannot answer these questions with repeated, consistent data, building a product is a blind bet.

How “Build – Measure – Learn” gets misunderstood

Many startups claim they follow lean thinking because they “built an MVP and measured.”
But what they measure is the real issue.

When startups track:

• but do not measure:

a clear hypothesis,

• traffic,
• downloads,
• likes,

but do not measure:

• a clear hypothesis,
• retention rates,
• willingness to pay,
• repeat behavior,

they fall into the trap of vanity metrics—numbers that look good but do not guide the next decision.

At that point, startups believe they are learning, when in reality they are just tracking their own busyness.

How to escape the “build first, ask later” trap

Experience from KisStartup’s mentoring and incubation programs shows that startups learn fastest when they delay heavy building and invest more in asking the right questions.

One simple but powerful rule:
Do not write code or design interfaces without a clear customer hypothesis and explicit criteria for rejecting that hypothesis.

Small experiments—landing pages, pre-orders, paper prototypes, structured interviews—often save up to 80% of the cost compared to fixing a product built on the wrong assumptions.

An open question for founders

If you had to pause all product development for the next two weeks, would your startup have enough customer data to make the next decision?

Or are you continuing to build… simply because you don’t yet know what to ask?

The next article in this series will dive into a blind spot directly connected to this mistake:
“You have customers—but no revenue.”

Key References

This article is synthesized from the above sources and KisStartup’s hands-on startup coaching experience in Vietnam.

© Copyright belongs to KisStartup. Any reproduction, citation, or reuse must clearly credit KisStartup.

• Blank, S. (2013). Why the Lean Startup Changes Everything. Harvard Business Review.
• Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Crown Business.
• Graham, P. (2008). Startup Mistakes.
• CB Insights (2021). The Top Reasons Startups Fail.
• First Round Capital Review – case studies on customer discovery and founder bias.
• Wasserman, N. (2012). The Founder’s Dilemmas. Princeton University Press.

Compiled and presented by KisStartup

For many technology startups, the most valuable assets are not factories or machinery, but intangible resources: technology, software, algorithms, inventions, data, and brands. Yet for a long time, financial systems have been accustomed to lending based primarily on tangible assets. This gap has left many startups in a difficult position: rich in value, but short on capital for growth.

IP-backed financing emerges as a solution to this challenge.

What Is IP-Backed Financing, in Simple Terms?

IP-backed financing refers to funding mechanisms in which startups use their intellectual property (IP) as the basis for securing loans, instead of—or in addition to—real estate or physical assets. IP assets may include patents, software, algorithms, trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets, as long as they have the potential to generate economic value in the future.

The key point is this: banks or funds do not lend simply because a company “has IP,” but because they believe that the IP can generate cash flows, or at least be exploited or transferred if the business encounters financial distress. For this reason, IP-backed financing is particularly suited to technology startups and innovative SMEs—companies with limited tangible assets but strong IP portfolios.

Where Is This Market Globally?

Globally, IP-backed financing is growing relatively quickly, but it remains a niche segment rather than a mainstream credit channel. Most transactions are concentrated in countries with clear policies, robust IP valuation systems, and strong intellectual property protection frameworks, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU, China, South Korea, and Singapore.

In these markets, IP-backed financing has not developed organically. Governments play a significant role by providing loan guarantees, subsidizing IP valuation costs, or establishing national IP evaluation systems. This reduces risk for banks and expands financing options for startups beyond equity.

Compared to asset-based lending using tangible collateral, the overall scale of IP-backed financing is still relatively small. This is not because IP lacks value, but because IP valuation is complex, enforcement and liquidation are difficult in default scenarios, and not all financial institutions have the capability to manage such risks.

How Can Startups Access IP-Backed Financing?

In practice, IP-backed financing takes multiple forms. Some startups secure loans by pledging patent portfolios or proprietary software. Others leverage IP as a foundation to access venture debt, combining debt financing with equity fundraising. More mature companies may monetize IP through licensing or outright transfer, generating cash flows that strengthen their balance sheets.

Across all models, one principle holds: IP must be connected to real business activity. Successful cases globally—from medtech and software to creative industries—demonstrate that IP becomes a financial asset only when embedded in a clear commercial narrative: who pays, for what purpose, and whether those cash flows are sustainable.

Why Do Many Startups with IP Still Fail to Secure Loans?

This is a common and often sobering question.

The first barrier is weak IP governance. Many startups have strong technology but unclear ownership, incomplete contracts with employees or partners, or reliance on third-party assets without robust agreements. For banks and funds, these issues represent significant risk.

The second barrier is the absence of proven cash flows. If IP remains at the idea, prototype, or pilot stage, without evidence of commercialization, meaningful valuation for lending purposes is nearly impossible.

The third barrier is market infrastructure. In many countries, including Vietnam, secondary markets for IP are underdeveloped. In the event of default, liquidating IP is far more complex than selling real estate. As a result, lenders often demand higher interest rates, additional guarantees, or simply decline financing.

What Does IP-Backed Financing Mean for Vietnamese Startups?

In the short term, IP-backed financing is unlikely to become a widespread option in Vietnam. However, in the medium to long term, this trend is almost inevitable, as corporate value increasingly resides in intangible rather than tangible assets.

For Vietnamese startups, the priority should not be to “borrow against IP immediately,” but to prepare for that possibility. This means treating IP as a real business asset: managing it clearly, linking it to revenue models, and articulating a compelling commercial story. Doing so not only positions startups for future IP-backed financing, but also makes them more attractive to investors, partners, and the broader market.

IP-backed financing is not a miracle solution, nor a shortcut. It is the result of serious IP management aligned with real business execution.

For technology startups, moving early in this direction may not lead to immediate loans, but it does place them one step ahead when capital markets begin to recognize intellectual property as a fully legitimate asset class.

© Copyright KisStartup. Any reproduction, quotation, or reuse must clearly credit KisStartup.

References

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)
Moving IP Finance from the Margins to the Mainstream (2025).
A foundational WIPO report on the role of intellectual property in financial systems, analyzing why IP must be “financialized” as intangible assets grow in economic importance. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-rn2025-7-en-moving-ip-fin...
Avon River Ventures
Understanding IP-Backed Financing: An Introduction.
An overview of IP-backed financing concepts, common lending structures, and why this model suits technology startups. https://avonriverventures.com/understanding-ip-backed-financing-an-intro...

Chambers & Partners
IP-backed financing: Leveraging intellectual property for income generation and as collateral.
A legal and financial analysis of using IP as collateral for growth-stage companies. https://chambers.com/articles/ip-backed-financing-leveraging-intellectua...

Inngot
IP Finance: Using intellectual property as loan collateral.
A practitioner’s perspective from a leading European IP valuation firm, outlining conditions under which banks accept IP as collateral. https://inngot.com/news-views/ip-finance-using-intellectual-property-as-...

Market Growth Reports
Intellectual Property Financing Market Report.
Market data on the size, growth rate, and key segments of the global IP financing market. https://www.marketgrowthreports.com/market-reports/intellectual-property...

Healthcare Digital
Intellectual property-backed lending is rapidly emerging as a pivotal financing mechanism for health.
An in-depth analysis of IP-backed financing transactions in the healthtech and medtech sectors. https://www.healthcare.digital/single-post/intellectual-property-backed-...

Blind Spot 1: Having IP but failing to link it to revenue
Ask yourself:

• What is our core IP (technology, software, data, processes, brand...)?
• Where is this IP generating direct or indirect revenue?
• If this IP were removed, would our current revenue be impacted?

Warning Signs:

• IP only appears in the “Legal” slide of your pitch deck.
• No one on the team can answer: How does this IP help us make money?

Quick Fix:

Write one sentence: “IP [X] helps us generate revenue by [Y] from customer [Z].”

If you can’t write this → you have a serious blind spot.

Blind Spot 2: IP exists but fails to create competitive barriers (Moats)
Ask yourself:

• If a competitor sees our product today, how long would it take them to copy it? (1 week / 1 month / 6 months / 2 years?)
• Which part of the product is the hardest to replicate?

Warning Signs:

• Competitors copy quickly, and the startup is “powerless” to stop them.
• The only advantage is speed, not control or ownership.

Quick Fix:

Circle 1–2 elements that are the hardest to copy → that is the IP you need to protect and exploit, not everything else.

Blind Spot 3: Messy or ambiguous IP ownership
Ask yourself:

• Who created the IP? Founders, employees, freelancers, or partners?
• Have all rights been officially transferred via signed contracts?
• Are we using third-party code, images, or data without clear permissions?

Warning Signs:

• IP was written by a freelancer without a clear contract.
• The Founder thinks it belongs to "the company," but the paperwork is still in their personal name.

Quick Fix:

Create a simple table: IP – Creator – Owner – Proof of Ownership.

Even one ambiguous IP is enough to make investors walk away.

Blind Spot 4: IP is not aligned with the target market
Ask yourself:

• In which market is the startup currently making (or planning to make) money?
• Is the IP protected in that specific market?
• Do we have a plan for territorial IP expansion?

Warning Signs:

• IP is registered "just to fill the file" but doesn't match the actual business territory.
• No one on the team knows where the IP is currently protected.

Quick Fix:

Apply the 80/20 Rule: Protect your IP in the regions that will generate 80% of your future revenue, not everywhere at once.

Blind Spot 5: IP is unusable for fundraising & partnerships
Ask yourself:

• If an investor asks: “What is the proof of your IP’s value?” → what can you provide?
• Can this IP be licensed, integrated, or shared under controlled conditions?

Warning Signs:

• You only have certificates, but no contracts, Letters of Intent (LOI), or pipelines.
• The IP depends entirely on one specific individual in the team.

Quick Fix:

Prepare an IP Value Proof Slide: [Which IP] → [Helped which deal] → [Created what value].

Self-Diagnosis Results

• Below 3/5 points: IP is a strategic weakness.
• 3–4/5 points: You have a foundation, but IP is not yet a lever for growth.
• 5/5 points: Your IP is ready for deep exploitation (licensing, fundraising, partnerships).

The Message

IP is not dangerous because you haven't registered it — IP is dangerous because you don't know how it serves your business model.

This mini-checklist is the first step for startups to view IP as a business asset, not just a legal procedure.

© Copyright by KisStartup. All forms of copying, quoting, or reusing must clearly credit the source: KisStartup.

Through coaching startups, KisStartup has observed a recurring reality: most startups do not fail because their ideas are weak, their technology is poor, or their founders lack effort. They fail because of familiar blind spots in founders’ thinking and decision-making.

We call these “founder blind spots.”

Why “blind spots”?

A blind spot is not something founders don’t know.
More dangerously, it is often something founders believe they already understand well enough—so they stop questioning, measuring, or validating it.

In everyday life, a blind spot is an area our eyes cannot see, yet the brain automatically fills in the gap, making us believe we see the whole picture. Entrepreneurship works the same way. When founders are:

• too close to the product,
• too emotionally attached to the original idea, or
• too busy with daily operations,

they can develop misplaced confidence and make decisions based on intuition, past experience, or personal beliefs—rather than real data and market feedback.

Blind spots rarely kill a startup instantly. Instead, they slowly push it off course, draining time, money, and energy until there is no room left to recover.

The most common founder blind spots

This KisStartup series focuses on the blind spots we repeatedly observe in Vietnamese and global startups, especially in early stages and during the transition from “idea” to “scalable model.”

Market and customer blind spots
Many founders believe they understand customers simply because they themselves are users. But “understanding” is not the same as measuring. Lack of systematic customer discovery, confusion between user–buyer–payer, or relying on polite feedback often prevents startups from ever reaching product–market fit.

Financial and cash-flow blind spots
Startups rarely “die suddenly” from running out of cash. More often, founders fail to notice deteriorating cash flow: rising burn rate, shrinking runway, and fixed costs growing faster than sustainable revenue. Avoiding numbers does not remove risk—it only delays and amplifies it.

People and organizational blind spots
“We’re a small, flexible team” often hides deeper issues: unclear roles, blurred accountability, and early hiring mistakes. Founders frequently underestimate the real cost of internal conflict and organizational distraction.

Product and technology blind spots
Some technical founders fall into over-engineering—building too much, too complex, for too long. Others launch too early with products that fail to solve core pain points. Both stem from the absence of clear learning criteria for an MVP.

Failure and pivot blind spots
Perhaps the most dangerous blind spot is psychological: reluctance to admit flawed assumptions, lack of a learning system from failure, and tying personal ego too tightly to the product. Many startups don’t lack pivot opportunities—they lack the courage and structure to pivot at the right time.

Who is this series for?

The “Blind Spots in Entrepreneurship” series is not meant to criticize or lecture founders. It is written for:

• founders building startups or innovation-driven SMEs,
• those who feel “something isn’t right” but can’t yet name it,
• investors, partners, and support organizations seeking deeper insight into why startups fail—and how to reduce that risk.

Each article will explore one blind spot in depth, with analysis, real cases, and practical approaches KisStartup uses in mentoring, training, and ecosystem building.

An open question for you:
If you had to choose the most dangerous blind spot for your startup right now, which one would it be?

© Copyright KisStartup. Any reproduction, quotation, or reuse must clearly credit KisStartup.